Research Article |
Corresponding author: Jairo Arroyave ( jarroyave@ib.unam.mx ) Academic editor: Andrew R. Mahon
© 2022 S. Elizabeth Alter, Jairo Arroyave.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Alter SE, Arroyave J (2022) Environmental DNA metabarcoding is a promising method for assaying fish diversity in cenotes of the Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 6: e89857. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.6.89857
|
The karst aquifer of the Yucatán Peninsula (YP) in southeastern Mexico is a unique ecosystem in which water-filled sinkholes, locally known as cenotes, connect subterranean waters with the surface. This system is home to around 20 species of freshwater fishes, including several that are endemic and/or threatened. Studies on this unique ichthyofauna have been partially hampered by the technical difficulties associated with sampling these habitats, particularly submerged caves. In this proof-of-concept study, we use environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding to survey the diversity of freshwater fishes associated with the YP karst aquifer by sampling six cenotes from across the Ring of Cenotes region in northwestern Yucatán, a 180-km-diameter semicircular band of abundant karst sinkholes. Through a combination of conventional sampling (direct observation, fishing) and eDNA metabarcoding, we detected eight species of freshwater fishes across the six sampled cenotes. Overall, our eDNA metabarcoding approach was effective at detecting the presence of fishes from cenote water samples, including one of the two endemic cave-dwelling fish species restricted to the subterranean section of the aquifer. Although our study was focused on detecting fishes via eDNA, we also recovered DNA from several other vertebrate groups, particularly bats. These results suggest that the eDNA metabarcoding approach represents a promising and largely noninvasive method to assay aquatic biodiversity in these vulnerable habitats, allowing more effective, frequent, and wide-ranging surveys. Our detection of DNA from aerial and terrestrial vertebrate fauna implies that eDNA from cenotes, besides being a means to survey aquatic fauna, may also offer an effective way to quickly survey non-aquatic biodiversity associated with these persistent water bodies.
eDNA, freshwater fishes, groundwater, karst aquifer
The Neotropical realm, including Central and South America, is home to most of the world’s freshwater fish species diversity (
The Yucatán Peninsula (YP) in southeastern Mexico contains one of the largest karstic aquifers on the planet (
Beyond some fragmentary information about composition and distribution, knowledge of the ichthyofauna from cenotes of the YP is very limited (
Our understanding of fish communities associated with cenotes has been hindered by the challenges inherent in sampling these habitats, particularly submerged caves. Collecting fishes from cenotes can be labor-intensive and technically challenging, and it requires the use of a variety of fishing gear and techniques aimed at effectively sampling a spectrum of microhabitats, ecologies, and behaviors. Cave-dwelling species can only be sampled by means of highly technical and specialized cave-diving techniques coupled with superb collecting skills. In addition, these conventional sampling methods run the risk of disturbing or damaging these fragile ecosystems and potentially causing unintended mortality of captured individuals.
Environmental DNA (eDNA) has quickly become a widely utilized method for surveying aquatic diversity without the need for capturing animals or observing them directly (
The goal of this study was to test the ability of eDNA metabarcoding to detect fish species diversity in cenotes of the Yucatán peninsula karst aquifer. Specifically, we sought to assess 1) whether a simplified method of filtration and preservation of filters could be used to successfully retrieve and preserve DNA from water samples in tropical field conditions, and 2) the extent to which eDNA results match species lists generated from conventional methods of survey and capture in the same locations.
To detect eDNA, we collected water samples from six cenotes across the Ring of Cenotes region in northwestern Yucatán, a 180-km-diameter semicircular band of abundant karst sinkholes (Figs
Photographs of the cenotes sampled in this study: cenote Dzenpolol (open type) (surface view (a), underwater view near the surface (b) and underwater view from the cavern zone (c)), cenote X’baba (open type) (surface view (d) and underwater view from the cavern zone (e)), cenote Polaban (cavern type) (view from the outside (f) and showing stairway into the water below (g)), cenote Santa María (well type) (h), cenote Xel Aktun (open type) (i), and cenote Ebis (well type) (showing ladder into the water below (j)).
To filter DNA from water samples, we used a Millipore filtration system and vacuum pump with 0.45um glass filters (Whatman). Where possible, we filtered a single 1L bottle through a single filter; some 1L samples required two filters due to higher turbidity. Filters were folded using sterile forceps with the exposed filtration surface on the inside and placed in sterile Ziploc bags containing 10–12 grams of desiccant (Multisorb, Sigma-Aldritch) and were kept at room temperature until DNA extraction at the end of the fieldwork (2–6 days following filtration).
DNA extraction was performed in a dedicated hood that had been thoroughly sterilized, in a lab where no research had ever been performed on the expected species. All reagents, pipettors, and all plastic supplies were sterilized prior to use by autoclaving and UV treatment in a Crosslinker. Only filtered tips were used. We extracted total DNA from filters using Qiagen PowerWater DNA extraction kits, including an extraction blank. Each filter was extracted separately. Following extraction, DNA from the same sites was pooled together in single tubes. DNA quantity was assessed using a Qubit 3.0 fluorometer (High Sensitivity kit).
We amplified a ~110bp fragment of the 12S marker using Ecoprimers (
We compiled a list of freshwater fish species with documented presence in cenotes and submerged caves of the northwestern YP and therefore expected to potentially occur in the sampled localities (Table
List of freshwater (primary, secondary, and vicarious) fish species with documented presence in cenotes and submerged caves of the northwestern YP and therefore expected to potentially occur in the sampled cenotes, including GenBank accession numbers of 12S sequences used and generated in this study and their corresponding sources and voucher specimens when available. *Sequence from A. aeneus in lieu of A. altior.
Species | Order | Family | GenBank accession(s) | Source(s) | Voucher(s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Astyanax altior | Characiformes | Characidae | BK013055* |
|
n/a |
Cribroheros robertsoni | Cichliformes | Cichlidae | ON364117 | This study | CNPE-IBUNAM 23847 (JA235) |
Mayaheros urophthalmus | Cichliformes | Cichlidae | ON364119 | This study | CNPE-IBUNAM 23304 (JA286) |
Parachromis multifasciatus | Cichliformes | Cichlidae | ON364122 | This study | CNPE-IBUNAM 23849 (JA295) |
Petenia splendida | Cichliformes | Cichlidae | KJ914664 | Del Rio-Portilla et al. (2016) | n/a |
Rocio gemmata | Cichliformes | Cichlidae | ON364129 | This study | CNPE-IBUNAM 23315 (JA325) |
Rocio octofasciata | Cichliformes | Cichlidae | NC_033548 | Musilova & Starostova (Unpublished) | n/a |
Thorichthys meeki | Cichliformes | Cichlidae | ON364130, AY279566 | This study, |
CNPE-IBUNAM 23239 (JA041), n/a |
Trichromis salvini | Cichliformes | Cichlidae | LC278116 | Miya & Sado (Unpublished) | n/a |
Vieja melanurus | Cichliformes | Cichlidae | ON364132, KF879808 | This study, Gao et al. (Unpublished) | CNPE-IBUNAM 23850 (JA327), n/a |
Belonesox belizanus | Cyprinodontiformes | Poeciliidae | EF017467 |
|
n/a |
Gambusia yucatana | Cyprinodontiformes | Poeciliidae | ON364118 | This study | CNPE-IBUNAM 23272 (JA121) |
Poecilia mexicana | Cyprinodontiformes | Poeciliidae | ON364123, KT175512 | This study, Stoeck & Wang (Unpublished) | CNPE-IBUNAM 23319 (JA334), n/a |
Poecilia orri | Cyprinodontiformes | Poeciliidae | ON364124 | This study | CNPE-IBUNAM 23303 (JA301) |
Poecilia velifera | Cyprinodontiformes | Poeciliidae | ON364126, KJ774894 | This study, Hardy (Unpublished) | CNPE-IBUNAM 23276 (JA139), n/a |
Pseudoxiphophorus bimaculatus | Cyprinodontiformes | Poeciliidae | ON364127 | This study | CNPE-IBUNAM 23295 (JA240) |
Typhlias pearsei | Ophidiiformes | Dinematichthyidae | ON364131, NC_061376 | This study, |
CNPE-IBUNAM 23284 (JA187), CNPE-IBUNAM 23278 (JA156) |
Rhamdia guatemalensis | Siluriformes | Heptapteridae | ON364128 | This study | CNPE-IBUNAM 23289 (JA227) |
Ophisternon infernale | Synbranchiformes | Synbranchidae | ON364120, OM388306 | This study, |
CNPE-IBUNAM 23285 (JA188, JA757) |
Taxonomic identifications from cenotes studied by conventional sampling (CS) (i.e., direct observation and/or fishing) and indirect detection via eDNA metabarcoding (eDNA). ND = not detected. Taxonomic identifications based on eDNA show the percent identity followed by the GenBank accession number for the best match on NCBI, including reference sequences generated as part of this study. *100% match with A. aeneus, A. mexicanus. A. altior sequence unavailable. **Match to multiple species within the genus; where one species is listed, others were eliminated based on known range.
Taxon | Common name | Cenote | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ebis | Dzenpolol | Polabán | Santa María | X’baba | Xel Aktun | ||
Fishes | |||||||
Astyanax altior | Yucatan tetra | ND | eDNA (100%, BK013055*) | ND | ND | eDNA (100%, BK013055*) | CS, eDNA (100%, BK013055*) |
Mayaheros urophthalmus | Mayan cichlid | ND | CS, eDNA (100%, ON364119) | ND | ND | CS, eDNA (100%, ON364119) | eDNA (100%, ON364119) |
Thorichthys meeki | Firemouth cichlid | ND | ND | ND | eDNA (100%, ON364130) | ND | CS, eDNA (100%, ON364130) |
Gambusia yucatana | Yucatan mosquitofish | ND | CS, eDNA (100%, ON364118) | CS, eDNA (100%, ON364118) | eDNA (100%, ON364118) | CS, eDNA (100%, ON364118) | CS, eDNA (100%, ON364118) |
Poecilia mexicana | Shortfin molly | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | CS, eDNA (100%, KT175512) |
Typhlias pearsei | Mexican blind brotula | CS, eDNA (99.1%, NC_061376) | CS | ND | CS, eDNA (99.1%, NC_061376) | CS | eDNA (99.1%, NC_061376) |
Rhamdia guatemalensis | Pale catfish | eDNA (100%, ON364128) | CS, eDNA (100%, ON364128) | CS, eDNA (100%, ON364128) | eDNA (100%, ON364128) | CS, eDNA (100%, ON364128) | CS, eDNA (100%, ON364128) |
Ophisternon infernale | Blind swamp eel | ND | ND | ND | CS | ND | ND |
Other vertebrates | |||||||
Natalus stramineus | Funnel-eared bat | eDNA (99.07%, AF345924**) | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
Glossophaga soricina | Pallas’s long-tongued bat | eDNA (98.15%, KX381774) | ND | ND | ND | ND | eDNA (98.15%, KX381774) |
Mormoops megalophylla | Ghost-faced bat | eDNA (100%, AF40717) | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
Myotis sp. | Mouse-eared bat | eDNA (100%, MN122885**) | eDNA (100%, MN122885**) | ND | ND | ND | ND |
Artibeus sp. | Neotropical fruit bat | ND | ND | ND | eDNA (99.07%, KX381234**) | ND | eDNA (99.07%, KX381234**) |
Pteronotus parnellii | Parnell’s mustached bat | ND | ND | ND | eDNA (100%, AF407181) | ND | ND |
Artibeus glaucus gnomus | Silvery fruit-eating bat | ND | ND | ND | eDNA (100%, KX381303) | ND | ND |
Phyllostomidae | Leaf-nosed bat | ND | ND | ND | eDNA (95%, KX381398**) | ND | ND |
Didelphis virginiana | Opossum | eDNA (100%, MT892666) | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
Canis lupus | Dog | ND | eDNA (100%, MN699609) | ND | ND | ND | ND |
Ortalis vetula | Chachalaca | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | eDNA (100%, AY952762**) |
Leptotila verreauxi | White-tipped dove | ND | eDNA (100%, HM640214) | ND | ND | ND | ND |
Butorides virescens | Striated heron | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | eDNA (100%, MW524499) |
Rana brownorum | Brown’s frog | ND | ND | ND | ND | eDNA (98.98%, AY115122) | ND |
With the exception of Astyanax altior, we were able to retrieve and/or generate 12S data from all freshwater fish species with documented presence in the study region/system (i.e., northwestern section of the YP karst aquifer). 12S reference sequence data from Astyanax aeneus (BK013055) was used in lieu of A. altior for the purpose of detecting the latter in cenotes from our eDNA data due to their phylogenetic affinity, as A. altior was described from a YP lineage of A. aeneus sensu lato (
Following sequencing, we trimmed, filtered and demultiplexed data using the OBITools pipeline (
The number of raw reads, reads after quality filtering, number of OTUs, and OTUs assigned to species (inclusive of non-fishes identified) resulting from the initial data processing are presented in Suppl. material
Though our study was focused on detecting fishes via eDNA, as a result of using vertebrate-specific primers for amplification of 12S we also recovered DNA from several other vertebrate groups (mammals, birds, and amphibians), particularly bats (with at least eight species) (Table
As a pilot, proof-of-concept study, this investigation resulted in the successful preservation, extraction and sequencing of eDNA from cenotes of the YP for the detection of fish diversity present in these habitats. Collection and preservation occurred in hot and humid field conditions, possibly resulting in low DNA yields for some samples (Suppl. material
Notably, eDNA was successful at detecting most fish species sampled via CS methods, with the blind swamp eel, O. infernale, being the only exception (Table
Our detection of DNA from aerial and terrestrial vertebrate fauna such as bats, birds, marsupials, and canids, indicates that eDNA from water in cenotes, besides being a means to survey aquatic fauna, may also offer a useful method for quickly surveying diversity across cave sites with persistent water bodies, particularly in the case of bats, which reside in caves overhanging karstic pools. Our study detected a surprising diversity of bats (including six genera) from water samples and suggests that future work to establish eDNA as a method for assaying bat diversity could be worthwhile, given the difficulties and potential hazards involved in sampling bats directly. Likewise, the identification of additional species of mammals, birds and amphibians using the cenotes may facilitate a more complete picture of their role in local ecosystems. Our study adds to a growing number of metabarcoding studies that have documented the detection of vertebrate “bycatch”, offering insights into non-fish vertebrate communities associated with aquatic habitats, and highlighting the potential of aquatic eDNA samples to characterize non-aquatic communities (
Because cenotes and the YP karst aquifer as a whole are subject to increasing anthropogenic activities, including pollution, water withdrawal, saline intrusion, and in some areas, foot traffic and infrastructure development (
Several previous studies have conducted explicitly quantitative assessments and comparisons of the performance of eDNA vs. CS methods in detecting species (e.g.,
Collection of eDNA samples and data may directly aid conservation and enforcement efforts in regions that show impacts of anthropogenic activities on fishes and other species. While we focused on fishes in this study, one of the great advantages of this method is that the same samples can be used to evaluate species diversity across a breadth of taxa, including bacteria, zooplankton, and invertebrates. In consideration of our findings, we recommend that future research and applied work (by conservation and biodiversity agencies, for instance) focus on the implementation of eDNA as a tool to supplement biomonitoring, and to develop a consistent and standardized plan for sample collection and analyses in these ecosystems. Such efforts should include consideration of practical standards for field and laboratory procedures (
This proof-of-concept study demonstrates that eDNA metabarcoding is an effective and promising approach for assaying fish diversity in karstic aquifers and similar freshwater habitats. Furthermore, this study lays the groundwork for more comprehensive studies aimed at investigating patterns of distribution and abundance in fishes from cenotes and submerged caves. Additional sampling across seasons and more sites/replicates, as well as the use of alternative metabarcoding primers (e.g., MiFish (
We want to express our gratitude to explorer and cave diver Erick Sosa and to Dr. Christopher Martinez (UC Irvine) for their critical assistance during the field component of this study. We also want to thank the Secretaría de Desarrollo Sustentable del Gobierno del Estado de Yucatán, México (SDS Yucatán; formerly SEDUMA) for logistic support in the field. We are grateful to Sam Chin for assistance with data analysis.
Financial support for this research was provided to JA by the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) through a “Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación e Innovación Tecnológica” (PAPIIT) grant (PAPIIT IA200517) and by the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT) through a “Ciencia Básica” grant (A1-S-28293).
Reference barcodes generated for 12S as part of this study have been deposited in the NCBI database (Accession #s ON364117–ON364132). Illumina (metabarcoding) files have been deposited in the NCBI Short Read Archive (BioProject ID PRJNA874083).
Summary results from initial eDNA raw data processing
Data type: excel file
Explanation note: Summary results from initial eDNA raw data processing.
OTU (Operational Taxonomic Unit) table
Data type: excel file
Explanation note: OTU (Operational Taxonomic Unit) table built using the OBITools pipeline as described in the main text. Reads from common contaminants including humans, cow, pig, and chicken were removed from downstream analyses, as were minor number of exogenous reads such as fin whale derived from marine samples run in the same library prep and sequencing experiment at an external sequencing facility.